Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 11-02-2011, 02:00 PM

Andrew,

As you know I am too stupid to have an authoritative opinion on the dating of P46. If that's the consensus, it still was likely unknown to Origen. How many Patristic references do we have from the period 250 - 325? No many. It might work. I'd have to talk with someone I trust to give me arguments for and against. I am not an expert on anything to do with the dating of manuscripts. To be honest, it seems to me to be a very subjective 'science.' Sinaiticus is a perfect case in point. All the dates seem to early for my liking. The earliest possible date inevitably becomes the date chosen. In this case however, I certainly have no authority whatsoever.

stephan huller · 11-02-2011, 02:37 PM

Another curiosity I just noticed while compiling the earliest Clementine references to the various Pauline letters - his almost complete ignorance of Galatians. It's also quite shocking. Here is the only early references to Galatians in Clement:

Quote:

Galatians 1.19 Hypotyposeis (p.199, l.27) BP1
Galatians 2.9 Hypotyposeis (p.196, l.7) BP1
Galatians 2.11 Hypotyposeis (p.196, l.10) BP1

Problem is that I like Photius of Constantinople don't believe that this is an authentic Clementine text. So then we're left with no references to Galatians until Gal 2.19 in the twelve authentic books of Clement (three books of Instructor, seven books of Stromata, Quis Dives Salvetur and the Exhortation).

Indeed once Galatians 2.19 hits Clement goes back to his usual self, consistently citing the section:

Quote:

1 Cor 2.19 Stromata 3 106 § 4 (p.245, l.15) BP1
1 Cor 2.20 Stromata 3 106 § 4 (p.245, l.15) BP1; 4 12 § 6 (p.254, l.4) BP1
1 Cor 2.21 Quis Dives Salvetur 8 § 2 (p.164, l.30) BP1
END OF CHAPTER 2
1 Cor 3.1 no reference in any early Patristic witness except Tertullian Prescription 27 § 3 (p.208, l.7) BP1
1 Cor 3.2 no reference in any early Patristic witness except Tertullian Against Marcion 5 2 § 2 (p.666, l.26) BP1
1 Cor 3.3 Stromata 3 104 § 5 (p.244, l.19) BP1
etc.

But the idea that Clement doesn't know anything about the following opening forty lines of text in Galatians is remarkable:

Quote:

1 Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
2 and all the brothers with me,
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
4 who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father,
5 to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.
14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased
16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.
17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia.
22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.
23 They only heard the report: “The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”
24 And they praised God because of me.
1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.
2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.
4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.
7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.
8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.
9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.
10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles
16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not!
18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.
19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

By contrast there are early and multiple references to the first chapter of the Ephesians starting at Eph. 1.4 (Eph 1.4 referenced in Excerpta e Theodoto 41 § 2 p.146, l.5 - * BP1; Protrepticus 6 § 4 p.59, l.24 BP1; Stromata 6 76 § 3 p.469, l.25 BP1; 7 107 § 5 p.76, l.15 BP1), Romans from Rom 1.11 (Stromata 5 2 § 3 p.327, l.4 BP1 5 26 § 5 p.342, l.17 BP1, 5 64 § 5 p.369, l.16 BP1, 1 Corinthians starting almost from the beginning, Philippians starting at Phil 1.7 (Strom. 4 92 § 4 p.289, l.7 BP1), Colossians starting at Col 1.9 (Strom. 5 60 § 2 p.367, l.4 BP1), 1 Thessalonians from 1 Thess 1.5 (Stromata 1 99 § 1 p.63, l.14 BP1).

There are no references to 2 Thessalonians chapter 1 in Clement. Unless the Biblindex site is faulty, I can't see any references to Philemon in any Church Father (which I think is wrong).

Could it possibly be that 1 Cor 15.50 (which now stands suspended in the air like a car dangling from a bridge in Clement's citations) continued into what is now the start of Clement's citations of Galatians? I don't know but there is something curious about such a concentration of Tertullian's attack against Marcion being focused on (a) 1 Corinthians chapter 15 (he almost goes line by line through the contents after 1 Cor 15.25) and (b) the insistence on Tertullian's part that Galatians is so important, so decisive to the Marcionite argument (I don't think Tertullian actually says that the letter was placed first in the canon for this reason from memory; I think scholars make this part up on their own).

My point however is - isn't it interesting that the concentration of effort in Tertullian to 'disprove' Marcion (both in Against Heresies and other heretical works) end up corresponding to sections that were unknown to Clement of Alexandria? How is this to be accounted for? Could it be that they were planted into the text by orthodox editors to develop what clearly amount to being 'red herring' arguments to distract from the real beliefs of Marcionitism? Maybe they weren't that crazy after all.

aa5874 · 11-02-2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

aa, just go through the citations I have developed OF THE WHOLE WORK in Clement. You'll see for yourself how remarkable the drop off is in chapter 14 (3 allusions), 15 (3 allusions) and 16 (= none). Usually Clement has almost 10 allusions per chapter and these chapters (14 and 15) are the longest chapters in 1 Corinthians and most theologically important. The other Church Fathers as noted actually MASSIVELY INCREASE the frequency of citation in chapter 15....

It is completely illogical to conclude that 1 Corinthians 14-16 are fakes based on the frequency of references to those chapters.

You will hardly find any writer of antiquity who made references to every single book and every single chapter of any ancient texts.

By the way, chapter 16 of 1 Corinthians does NOT really deal with doctrinal issues. It is mainly about greetings, salutations and travel itinerary.

stephan huller · 11-02-2011, 03:36 PM

But Adamantius for example frequently cites these details so too Origen but never Clement

Sheshbazzar · 11-02-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Maybe they weren't that crazy after all.

Oh, they were crazy all right, infected with and carriers of the virulently contagious Zombie Jebus Brain Disease, a danger to everyone that came into contact with them, bringing insanity, suffering, and death to millions.

stephan huller · 11-02-2011, 04:38 PM

And looking at the reference in Stromata Book Three one could make a case that Clement thinks that it belongs with the material in 1 Corinthians (I can make an even stronger case with material from Galatians chapter 3 momentarily). Here is the original reference in Stromata 3 which starts and ends with 1 Corinthians and has Galatians chapter 2 in the middle followed by extensive section by section references to 1 Corinthians again:

Quote:

"Clean away the old leaven to become bread of a fresh baking," the Apostle calls loudly to us." [1] And again, in indignation at people like that, he instructs that "if any professed Christian practices fornication, is governed by the hope of profit, worships idols, uses abusive language, gets drunk, or is a swindler, we should have no fellowship, not even at table, with him."[2] "Through the Law," he says, "I am dead to the Law in order to live to God. I am crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who am alive" in the way I used to live, lustfully – "but Christ who is alive in me," making me blessedly pure through obedience to the commandments. In consequence, whereas previously I was alive in the flesh following the ways of the flesh, "now my life in the flesh is lived by faith in God’s Son" [3] ... This is why the Apostle makes the lofty statement, "I wrote in my letter that you should have nothing to do with profligate living" down to "The body is not for sexual promiscuity but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body." [4] To make sure that he is not identifying marriage with fornication he adds, "Or do you not realize that anyone who attaches himself to a prostitute becomes physically one with her?" [5] Will anyone call a virgin before marriage a prostitute? "Do not deprive one another," he says, "except temporarily by mutual agreement." [6] By using the word "deprive" he is showing the due obligation of marrying, the production of children. He made a point of this earlier in the words, "The husband must give the wife what is her due, and vice versa." [7]

After making this contribution, she is a helpmate domestically and in the Christian faith. He goes on to speak more clearly: "I have an order for the married. It is not from me but from the Lord. A wife is not to seek separation from her husband. If she does, she is to remain unmarried or come to reconciliation with her husband. The husband is not to divorce his wife. To the rest I speak in my own person not as representing the Lord. [From the Scripture text] ‘If any Christian male’ down to ‘but now they are dedicated to God.’ [8] These people who run down the Law and marriage as if it were constituted merely by the Law and alien to the New Covenant – what do they say in face of this? Those who have such a loathing for sex and childbirth – what have they to say in answer to this legislation? For Paul also lays down that leadership in the Church should rest with "a bishop who presides successfully over his household" and that "marriage to one wife" constitutes a household with the Lord’s blessing.

"So to the pure, everything is pure," he says. "To the tainted minds of the faithless, nothing is pure; they are tainted in reason and conscience." As to illegitimate pleasure he says, "Make no mistake. The sexually immoral, worshipper of idols, adulterers, passive perverts, homosexuals, those who pursue profit, robbers, drunkards, people who use abusive language, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God." We used to be such, but "have passed through the purifying waters." [9] But they purify themselves for this licentiousness. Their baptism is out of responsible self-control into sexual immorality. Their philosophy is the gratification of their pleasures and passions. They teach a change from self-discipline to indiscipline. The hope they offer is the titillation of their genitals. They make themselves excluded from the kingdom of God instead of enrolled disciples. Under the name of what they falsely call knowledge 460 they have embarked on the road to outer darkness ... [Stromata 3..106 - 109]

[1] 1 Cor 5.7
[2] 1 Cor 5.11
[3] Gal 2.19-20
[4] 1 Cor 5.9 – 6.13
[5] 1 Cor 6.16
[6] 1 Cor 7.5
[7] 1 Cor 7.3
[8] 1 Cor 7.10-14
[9] 1 Cor 6.9-11

aa5874 · 11-02-2011, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

But Adamantius for example frequently cites these details so too Origen but never Clement

Please show the actual passages where Origen frequently cites 1 Corinthians 16.

stephan huller · 11-02-2011, 06:30 PM

No ding dong. I've given you a list of where ALL Patristic sources cite 1 Corinthians 16. If you go to Biblindex you'll see that Origen is the most frequent witness for ANY scriptural passage.

stephan huller · 11-02-2011, 06:43 PM

This is the more important reference. Notice the intertwining of material from 1 Corinthians and Galatians. The explicit reference to 1 Corinthians might well be a scribal addition but for our present intents and purposes it really doesn't matter. Let me show you what I find interesting in Instructor 1:6:

Quote:

Does this, I ask, take place on the advent of this instruction? You cannot tell the time. For instruction leads to faith, and faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit. For that faith is the one universal salvation of humanity, and that there is the same equality before the righteous and loving God, and the same fellowship between Him and all, the apostle most clearly showed, speaking to the following effect: "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed, so that the law became our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith has come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. [1] Do you not hear that we are no longer under that law which was accompanied with fear, but under the Word, the master of free choice? Then he subjoined the utterance, clear of all partiality: For you are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [2] There are not, then, in the same Word some illuminated (gnostics); and some animal (or natural) men; but all who have abandoned the desires of the flesh are equal and spiritual before the Lord. And again he writes in another place: For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and we have all drunk of one cup. [3] Nor were it absurd to employ the expressions of those who call the reminiscence of better things the filtration of the spirit, understanding by filtration the separation of what is baser, that results from the reminiscence of what is better. There follows of necessity, in him who has come to the recollection of what is better, repentance for what is worse. Accordingly, they confess that the spirit in repentance retraces its steps. In the same way, therefore, we also, repenting of our sins, renouncing our iniquities, purified by baptism, speed back to the eternal light, children to the Father.

Jesus therefore, rejoicing in the spirit, said: I thank You, O Father, God of heaven and earth, that You have hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes; [4] the Master and Teacher applying the name babes to us, who are readier to embrace salvation than the wise in the world, who, thinking themselves wise, are inflated with pride. And He exclaims in exultation and exceeding joy, as if lisping with the children, Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in Your sight. [5] Wherefore those things which have been concealed from the wise and prudent of this present world have been revealed to babes. Truly, then, are we the children of God, who have put aside the old man, and stripped off the garment of wickedness, and put on the immortality of Christ; that we may become a new, holy people by regeneration, and may keep the man undefiled. And a babe, as God's little one, is cleansed from fornication and wickedness. With the greatest clearness the blessed Paul has solved for us this question in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, writing thus: Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be children, but in understanding be men. [6] And the expression, When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child, [7] points out his mode of life according to the law, according to which, thinking childish things, he persecuted, and speaking childish things he blasphemed the Word, not as having yet attained to the simplicity of childhood, but as being in its folly; for the word νήπιον has two meanings. When I became a man, again Paul says, I put away childish things. [8] It is not incomplete size of stature, nor a definite measure of time, nor additional secret teachings in things that are manly and more perfect, that the apostle, who himself professes to be a preacher of childishness, alludes to when he sends it, as it were, into banishment; but he applies the name children to those who are under the law, who are terrified by fear as children are by bugbears; and men to us who are obedient to the Word and masters of ourselves, who have believed, and are saved by voluntary choice, and are rationally, not irrationally, frightened by terror. Of this the apostle himself shall testify, calling as he does the Jews heirs according to the first covenant, and us heirs according to promise [9]: Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons by Him. [10] See how He has admitted those to be children who are under fear and sins; but has conferred manhood on those who are under faith, by calling them sons, in contradistinction from the children that are under the law: For you are no more a servant, he says, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. [11] What, then, is lacking to the son after inheritance? Wherefore the expression, When I was a child, may be elegantly expounded thus: that is, when I was a Jew (for he was a Hebrew by extraction) I thought as a child, when I followed the law; but after becoming a man, I no longer entertain the sentiments of a child, that is, of the law, but of a man, that is, of Christ, whom alone the Scripture calls man, as we have said before. I put away childish things. But the childhood which is in Christ is maturity, as compared with the law. Having reached this point, we must defend our childhood. And we have still to explain what is said by the apostle: I have fed you with milk (as children in Christ), not with meat; for you were not able, neither yet are you now able. [12] For it does not appear to me that the expression is to be taken in a Jewish sense; for I shall oppose to it also that Scripture, I will bring you into that good land which flows with milk and honey. [13] A very great difficulty arises in reference to the comparison of these Scriptures, when we consider. For if the infancy which is characterized by the milk is the beginning of faith in Christ, then it is disparaged as childish and imperfect. How is the rest that comes after the meat, the rest of the man who is perfect and endowed with knowledge, again distinguished by infant milk? Does not this, as explaining a parable, mean something like this, and is not the expression to be read somewhat to the following effect: I have fed you with milk in Christ; and after a slight stop, let us add, as children, that by separating the words in reading we may make out some such sense as this: I have instructed you in Christ with simple, true, and natural nourishment—namely, that which is spiritual: for such is the nourishing substance of milk swelling out from breasts of love. So that the whole matter may be conceived thus: As nurses nourish new-born children on milk, so do I also by the Word, the milk of Christ, instilling into you spiritual nutriment.

Thus, then, the milk which is perfect is perfect nourishment, and brings to that consummation which cannot cease. Wherefore also the same milk and honey were promised in the rest. Rightly, therefore, the Lord again promises milk to the righteous, that the Word may be clearly shown to be both, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end; [14] the Word being figuratively represented as milk. Something like this Homer oracularly declares against his will, when he calls righteous men milk-fed (γαλακτοφάγοι). So also may we take the Scripture: And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ; [15] so that the carnal may be understood as those recently instructed, and still babes in Christ. For he called those who had already believed on the Holy Spirit spiritual, and those newly instructed and not yet purified carnal; whom with justice he calls still carnal, as minding equally with the heathen the things of the flesh: For whereas there is among you envy and strife, are you not carnal, and walk as men? [16] Wherefore also I have given you milk to drink, he says; meaning, I have instilled into you the knowledge which, from instruction, nourishes up to life eternal. But the expression, I have given you to drink (ἐπότισα), is the symbol of perfect appropriation. For those who are full-grown are said to drink, babes to suck. For my blood, says the Lord, is true drink. [17] In saying, therefore, I have given you milk to drink, has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk? And what follows next, not meat, for you were not able, may indicate the clear revelation in the future world, like food, face to face. For now we see as through a glass, the same apostle says, but then face to face. [18] Wherefore also he has added, neither yet are you now able, for you are still carnal, [19] minding the things of the flesh—desiring, loving, feeling jealousy, wrath, envy.

[1] Galatians 3:23-25
[2] Galatians 3:26 - 28
[3] 1 Corinthians 12:13
[4] Luke 10:21
[5] Luke 10:21
[6] 1 Corinthians 14:20
[7] 1 Corinthians 13:11
[8] 1 Corinthians 13:11
[9] Galatians 3:29
[10] Galatians 4:1-5
[11] Galatians 4:7
[12] 1 Corinthians 3:2
[13] Exodus 3:8
[14] Revelation 1:8
[15] 1 Corinthians 3:1
[16] 1 Corinthians 3:3
[17] John 6:55
[18] 1 Corinthians 13:12
[19] 1 Corinthians 3:3

stephan huller · 11-02-2011, 08:11 PM

Now let's start looking at the material. The most interesting part for our purposes is when Clement (or the scribe) identifies at least some of the material as coming from 'the First Epistle to the Corinthians':

Quote:

Σαφέστατα γοῦν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος ἀπήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς τῆς ζητήσεως ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ ὧδέ πως γράφων [Clement Instructor 1.6.33.1,2]

With the greatest clearness the blessed Paul has solved for us this question in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, writing thus:

But what is the 'question' Clement is referring to? It can only be the question which begins the section here - "Does this, I ask, take place on the advent of this instruction?"

Quote:

We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing. And since knowledge springs up with illumination, shedding its beams around the mind, the moment we hear, we who were untaught become disciples. Does this, I ask, take place on the advent of this instruction? You cannot tell the time. For instruction leads to faith, and faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit. [Instructor 1.6.32]

There can be no doubt that Clement is saying that he will demonstrate where in the 'First Epistle to the Corinthians' the apostle Paul has 'solved' the question of when illumination comes to the initiate. Yet if we look to the full citation, Clement actually points to what now appears in the Epistle to the Galatians as the solution to the difficulty:

Quote:

With the greatest clearness the blessed Paul has solved for us this question in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, writing thus: Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be children, but in understanding be men. And the expression, When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child, points out his mode of life according to the law, according to which, thinking childish things, he persecuted, and speaking childish things he blasphemed the Word, not as having yet attained to the simplicity of childhood, but as being in its folly; for the word νήπιον has two meanings. When I became a man, again Paul says, I put away childish things. It is not incomplete size of stature, nor a definite measure of time, nor additional secret teachings in things that are manly and more perfect, that the apostle, who himself professes to be a preacher of childishness, alludes to when he sends it, as it were, into banishment; but he applies the name children to those who are under the law, who are terrified by fear as children are by bugbears; and men to us who are obedient to the Word and masters of ourselves, who have believed, and are saved by voluntary choice, and are rationally, not irrationally, frightened by terror. Of this the apostle himself shall testify, calling as he does the Jews heirs according to the first covenant, and us heirs according to promise: Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons by Him.

Indeed which passage does Clement reference as explaining with 'great clearness'? "When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child?" "When I became a man, again Paul says, I put away childish things?" These can hardly be thought to speak with the 'greatest clearness' as they are little more than allegories. The passage which Clement clearly means 'explains' the idea is actually the one which - according to our canon at least is associated now with Galatians:

Quote:

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons by Him.

Indeed look again at Clement's own explanation of when 'illumination' comes to the initiate a little earlier in the section again:

Quote:

Does this, I ask, take place on the advent of this instruction? You cannot tell the time. For instruction leads to faith, and faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit.

There are two ideas here - (1) a certain amount of time must be 'completed' during the initiation and then (2) Christ (a.k.a. 'the Holy Spirit') comes and trains the initiate at baptism after he (the initiate) has stripped off his clothes and is immersed in Him (= Christ). So the choice of the final citation is clearly what Clement has in mind to prove his point:

Quote:

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors, till the time appointed by the father. So also we, when we were children, were in bondage under the rudiments of the world: but when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons by Him.

The point of course is that it is only because we have a canon which assigns this quotation to 'Galatians' rather than '1 Corinthians' that we ignore the obvious - i.e. Clement is pointing to this material as 'clearing up' when illumination comes to the initiate. I am beginning to suspect that the portions that Clement cites from what we call 'Galatians' was actually the conclusion to 1 Corinthians.

Many of you are probably struggling with the second part of the reference though - i.e. "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons by Him." We want this to apply to Jesus the man. Nevertheless, Clement undoubtedly interpreted the passage in terms of the manner in which the modern Copts do (or at least the writers down to the present that I have read in Stephen J Davis's book Coptic Christology in Practice: Incarnation and Divine Participation in Late Antique and Medieval Egypt. In other words, that the Egyptian Church always understood the Incarnation was an ongoing process. It started with 'the first Christ' and continues to transfer from body to body of 'those born of women.' None of this need imply that Jesus was anything but an angelic being to Clement. As we have seen from Irenaeus, there were ancient users of the Gospel of Mark who divided 'Jesus' from 'Christ.' 'Christ' in the passage from Galatians is both 'the first Christ' born of woman and presumably all subsequent incarnations of his being up until the modern day. Christ is for Clement quite literally 'the Instructor' - not 'original Instructor' but all instructors who adopt initiates as sons. I hope people understand this. If not there is always Athanasius

“He became human in order that we might become divine” (On the Incarnation 54).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-02-2011, 02:00 PM	#21
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Andrew, As you know I am too stupid to have an authoritative opinion on the dating of P46. If that's the consensus, it still was likely unknown to Origen. How many Patristic references do we have from the period 250 - 325? No many. It might work. I'd have to talk with someone I trust to give me arguments for and against. I am not an expert on anything to do with the dating of manuscripts. To be honest, it seems to me to be a very subjective 'science.' Sinaiticus is a perfect case in point. All the dates seem to early for my liking. The earliest possible date inevitably becomes the date chosen. In this case however, I certainly have no authority whatsoever.

11-02-2011, 03:36 PM	#24
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But Adamantius for example frequently cites these details so too Origen but never Clement

11-02-2011, 06:30 PM	#28
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No ding dong. I've given you a list of where ALL Patristic sources cite 1 Corinthians 16. If you go to Biblindex you'll see that Origen is the most frequent witness for ANY scriptural passage.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.